Child Protection Interventions Within Indigenous Communities: An ‘Anthropological’ Perspective

Abstract

In recent times, child welfare bureaucracies have been required to re‐define their relationship with indigenous communities, particularly in view of the impacts associated with their past interventions within these communities. This process of readjustment has been grounded in the apparent endorsement by child welfare bureaucracies of the principle of indigenous self‐determination and their declared acknowledgement of the desirability of devolving greater responsibility for decision making about child welfare matters to indigenous communities. This paper suggests that, despite statements to the contrary, the processes and mechanisms employed by child welfare agencies to promote indigenous autonomy have not adequately acknowledged the saliency of indigenous social domains nor have they seriously challenged the precepts of the existing administrative domains that govern child protection interventions. Consequently the processes employed by child protection agencies to develop culturally appropriate services have seldom matched the rhetoric associated with them. It is still the case that indigenous Australians are expected to fit within the current structure of child welfare agencies, and that their expectations should conform with the accepted orthodoxies that govern child protection interventions. This paper seeks to examine the processes by which child welfare bureaucracies have, on the one hand, attempted to re‐cast their relationship with indigenous communities, while, on the other hand, maintaining the primacy of their administrative domains.

Corporate Communications

“…Litwin (1997) notes that the NSW Department of Community Services has taken measures directed at advancing self-determination and acknowledging Indigenous culture. These have included: recruiting Indigenous field officers and policy advisers, funding Indigenous organisations, and establishing the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle within child protection legislation (Litwin 1997). These policies are based on the principles of self-determination and empowerment.…”

“…However, she argues that the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in the out-ofhome care system can be taken as a demonstration that these policies have not led to particularly successful outcomes. Litwin (1997) also notes the paradox of child welfare bureaucracies providing a service to Indigenous peoples when they have contributed to the need for these services in the first place. She points out that Indigenous communities do not have a tradition of active involvement in child welfare policy, with their response, based on past history, being one of suspicion and resistance.…”

“…Finally, Litwin (1997) contends that there has never been an attempt by child welfare to understand the nature of the differences between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous concepts of child care. Without these major issues being addressed, and a determination of where the Indigenous culture is expected to fit in with the bureaucratic child welfare culture, 'institutionalised racism' will continue (1997:337).…”

An Aboriginal community's perceptions and experiences of child neglect in a rural town

“…There is a widely held belief that the care of Aboriginal children is scrutinised by the child protection system because non‐Aboriginal workers, who comprise the bulk of caseworkers, are not aware of Aboriginal parenting norms and are mistaking cultural family practices for child neglect (Litwin :337; Nigro :5; Senate Community Affairs Committee Secretariat :231‐234). Previous social work practices have also caused harm to Aboriginal communities because workers removed children for what they believed was in the “best interest” of the child, when in reality it resulted in family breakdown and trauma (Bamblett & Lewis ; Cripps ).…”